Question one is relevant because he is a complete fraud. And she knows it.

If my memory of the sequence is correct, Elizabeth and John called the big presser to put forth her cancer as a prop and to otherwise play the maximum sympathy card in his campaign after she knew full well about Rielle and the baby.

Gawd these people are unctious. Him more than her, but her too nevertheless.

Nosey gossip? She spent an hour discussing nothing else on Oprah. And paraded her children. If you don't want to keep the talk going, you can publish a book about Cancer and ignore the affair. She made rules for interviews such as "her name must not be spoken" so she could have made rules that the affair was a private matter and she wanted to protect the children from further public discussion.

What was irritating was that she said a few times, "I don't know why he did it.. HE still doesn't know why he did it." Poor man! So confused!

Doesn't care if the baby is his or not? Puhleese.

Wow, the house, the in-door basketball court with risers - it's as big as any high school court I have ever seen. She's not worried about Rielle and Baby claiming some of that? I don't believe it either.

John Edwards is an asshole, pure and simple. No one forced him to run for President, and he ran knowing fully well that this story could have blown up at any time. Had he won the Democratic nomination, this story would no doubt have come out and would probably have handed the Republicans the election at a time when the Democrats otherwise had trends going in their direction. He betrayed the Democratic Party and his supporters. The hell with him.

Fen - regarding the women you mention, only a couple of them may be telling the whole truth about their relationships with big Democrats, and I suspect more than a few women can have tales to tell about important Republicans. Newt Gingrich's ex-wives certainly come to mind. Also, there's still a conversation going on in the Palladian/ZPS thread about big government, etc., with a question from me to you. Perhaps you should give it a look.

But in answer to your question, (skipping the part about me only being earnest on Mother's Day) I don't have all the truths here. I think there is a lot of anger toward Elizabeth for the primary outcomes. I've said before that with all that she was dealing with at the time, I have a lot of sympathy for her.

Do I think it's likely that John Edwards has cheated before? Yeah. I'm just saying that thinking it is likely and holding Elizabeth accountable for it as a "fact" are two different things. That's all.

Do we know that Edwards had other affairs? I'm asking in earnest? I don't know this answer..

No, we don't know.

If we do, I can see how number one would be relevant then, yes.

There is a pattern thats suspect though. People who cheat are usually caught because they get lazy re the coverup. They start putting less and less energy into the effort, because they've been getting away with it for so long. Why maintain a Level 10 Deception when Level 6 gets the job done just as easily?

So Elizabeth is the woman who comes home a half hour early from work to find John in bed with another woman, and she believes its the first time he's cheated on her?

somefeller: Fen - regarding the women you mention, only a couple of them may be telling the whole truth about their relationships with big Democrats, and I suspect more than a few women can have tales to tell about important Republicans..

Your knee-jerk misses the point. All these Democrat women were villified by their own party before the perp came clean. Even Monica was made out to be a stalker.

I wouldn't be too interested in whether John Edwards has cheated before, and whether Elizabeth knew it, except that they collaborated to put forth an image of a faithful husband, devoted to his ailing wife, and run on that in this primary. It's clear that they put personal ambition above the right of the party, and of Democratic voters, to have a viable candidate for the White House.

I tend to think he hasn't cheated before, at least not in such a stupid way, where he got involved with the other woman romantically - in other words, not just a one-night stand - because those types of affairs become too obvious, and we'd have heard about the rumors before this one. People in his 2004 campaign backed out of this one in part because they saw the interaction between Edwards and Hunter and it gave them pause. Well, maybe that was because they were already disposed to worry about him. Who knows?

But running last year was a terrible choice, and one that would have harmed the country. Both John and Elizabeth Edwards stand guilty of that decision. I can feel sympathy for her on personal terms, but I have no respect for her attempts to resurrect John Edwards' public career.

I think every politician with an active libido looks at Bill Clinton and thinks that if he got away with all that crap, why not me...I would put Clinton's "affair" with Monica in the sleaze hall of fame, and he has not paid any appreciable price for it.....I'm not sure of the demerit system: do you lose more points if you fornicate with a hooker than with a civilian; is it worse if she's much younger and prettier than your wife; do you get bonus demerit points if your wife is sick; if you're married to someone like Hillary is it always OK to cheat? I truly wonder why guys like Edwards, Hart, and Spitzer went down in flames, and Clinton and Ted Kennedy became elder statesman. Can anyone explain?

And john: That's sweet about baiting the fishing hooks for your daughter. My dad always did that for me, too. Well into adulthood. LOL. Which is kind of odd because the fish didn't bother me, nor did cleaning them myself. But the worms...yeah, still can't do it. :)

Aw, isn't Beth the cutest little true believer? She thinks the sack of shit lawyer never cheated before. She is the sort of naive person who will live below sea level in a place run by democrats. She very smart!

The great men who have risked their political careers with lovers not their wives is a very long list. Maybe we demand that they love us more than their wives and they are well able to meet all needs at once. That factor alone reveals how little time governing actually takes.It's all in the attitude conveyed to us by actors of great performing skill.

Did anyone else watch "This Week" this morning? George Stephanopoulos said that he had gotten some Edwards campaign staffers to admit that they'd decided by December or January that should Edwards look as though he had a serious shot at the nomination, they would come clean about what were (by then) their increasingly dire suspicions and make sure that he was not nominated. Since at the time it didn't look like he was going anywhere, they stayed mum.

Thoughts on this:

(1) Kinda nasty of this crew to admit this now, even as "unnamed sources." If they thought their candidate was going to tank and they could carry the secret of their plot to the grave, as it were, opening up to the press after the fact is a particularly spiteful twist of the knife.

(2) And more importantly: Who were these people actually working for? I can't see any argument for running a campaign as well as you can unless you start actually winning, at which point you promise one another to scuttle the ship, except the obvious: The Edwards folks were anti-Hillary (if not positively pro-Obama) rather than pro-Edwards, and wanted him afloat as long as possible so as to split the white vote.

I dislike Edwards for a host of reasons, but I can't help but feel a twinge of pity for a guy whose own campaign staff was evidently trying to get him to succeed just enough, but not too much. I thought for politics that nasty you had to go to academia.

Yeah, I saw that on the George Stephanopoulos show this morning. When he said that, I turned my wife and said, "damn, politics is a rough business, isn't it?". Edwards would have deserved it, though. I'd argue those staffers might have seen their duty to the Democratic Party as being greater than that of any one man, and thus were more like whistleblowers than backstabbers. But I guess that depends on the motivations of the individuals in question.

I agree with Kaus. Why did she write this, when it obviously is not the whole truth, it will hurt their children, and is maybe just enough to CYA? Why do we applaud women like her or Princess Diana who write vengeful books that, oh by the way, their kids and their kids' friends will also read? It's Jerry Springer, papered over.

Even Oprah's commenters have mixed feelings about it. http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/107221

I'd argue those staffers might have seen their duty to the Democratic Party as being greater than that of any one man, and thus were more like whistleblowers than backstabbers. But I guess that depends on the motivations of the individuals in question.

No, what it depends on is the timeline. If they thought their man was fatally tainted, as apparently they did, their obvious duty to the Party was to pressure him to withdraw and then (if that failed) to go public.

That they didn't do that argues that they had some interest in his staying in the race. (OK, it occurs to me that they had an additional reason to keep his candidacy alive, which is that as long as he was running he was paying them, but I was looking for something less venal than that.)

Had they seen their primary duty as to the Party, they would have acted as soon as possible to get rid of a candidate they knew to be unviable, because the longer he stayed in the race as an apparently plausible choice, the more he distorted the primary voters' perception of the really viable choices.

The only reason I can think of to keep him going as long as possible is to sabotage Hillary Clinton. If you are determined to spur your horse on up to the point where it looks like winning, but make a mental resolution to pull back then, you have to have some motive or other; and if you were a "whistleblower" with Party loyalty you'd blow your whistle as soon as you were tolerably sure. This is politics, remember; it's amazingly easy to blow a whistle so quietly that no one will ever know that it's you who did it.

What did people see in him? Why did they send money? Did he have on an partial invisible cape that kept the slimey bits from showing to the money giving people? I knew he was slimey when he ran for the senate. I wrote in a name of a friend for that election. I wish she would have let this fade away. It is so bizarre - so icky.

Are you constructing another elaborate bogus media version of your marriage after the first version collapsed? (None of our business? Er, you're the one who's coming forward to expose your private life for some reason. Nobody asked you to. Asserting that it's not our business means we have to accept your version of it. We did that once before..

John and Elisabeth - two preening media whore scumbags that richly deserve each other..

Good points, mdulak. I was trying to give these mysterious staffers the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, as you said, the timing on all this is important, and if they only came to believe this story in December, there wasn't much time to try and force him out before Iowa and New Hampshire did the trick. Also, while the issue of steady payment may be a venal one, people have certainly done worse to keep a paycheck coming in.

You are leaving out another possibility-- they are as phony as he is, and they are lying in self-serving manners now just as he would.

That is what I think is the case, anyway. They are saying this now because they think it helps get them off the hook for their candidate's mendacity. They have seen before that people are way too credulous and that it might work.

"Also, while the issue of steady payment may be a venal one, people have certainly done worse to keep a paycheck coming in."

True.

And lord knows, had Edwards' campaign taken off, they would have then done the right thing rather than looked at the possibility of having a job during the general campaign and even in an actual Presidential administration. Because then they would have felt compelled to do the right thing when they had not before.

More likely--- they are just saying whatever they think will best help them in the future.

[W]hile the issue of steady payment may be a venal one, people have certainly done worse to keep a paycheck coming in.

Well, of course. I'm sure that people have before now committed murder to keep a steady paycheck coming in. But no one who decided to do what Stephanopoulos said these staffers decided to do could be described as working either in the interests of Edwards or in the interests of the Democratic Party. They were either working for another faction of the Party than they professed to be, or else running a sort of scam on the primary voters and contributors, and only hoping to get it to run as long as possible. Or, of course, both.

EnigmatiCore, I could easily believe that they're lying to save their own skins, except for two points: (1) What they're now claiming to have said and thought does them no conceivable credit; and (2) Even if it did, we don't know who they were anyway.

True, Stephanopoulos knows who they were, but I don't see how that's going to help them much, even if all they want is jobs at ABC.

Remember, this all came out just as the Dem convention was starting up.And Elizabeth Edwards had been slated to heroically speak at the convention.There was still some question whether she would when Obama cut them off at the knees, saying he'd heard about it while in flight, and he understood neither John nor Elizabeth would make the convention.

Do you think she didn't love the spotlight enough to hide whatever she had to hide to put herSELF there?

Oh, you mean they were bureaucrats. Like the chumps on the McCain campaign.Astute observation friend.

No, not like. McCain's folks, so far as I know, weren't going to ditch him if it looked like he would actually win or anything.

They were not interested in getting anyone elected, just in managing their own jobs.

I'm not sure I would put it like that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I would not like to put it like that. They must have been interested in getting some Democrat elected (I'm setting aside the idea that the entire Edwards campaign was, say, in the pay of Mitt Romney); but they can't have been particularly keen on its being Edwards.

Some remarkedly sordid info about their ostensible candidate comes to (partial) light, and (according to Stephanopoulos) they decide to keep fighting the good fight for their guy unless he starts to look like a viable candidate, at which point they'll scarper.

No one honestly supporting Edwards or honestly supporting the Democrats as such would act like that. To be honest, the first analogy that occurred to me was the Chesterton short story from The Man Who Knew Too Much, titled "The Fool of the Family." If you've read it, you'll know what I mean.

Meanwhile, it must be recognized that Elizabeth's first priority was helping her husband get to the White House. Her formidable, brave presence on the campaign trail was John's armor. As long as she was there, his innocence was assumed. Family unity? Or conspiracy to commit public fraud? [E.A.]

s/Elizabeth/Hillary/s/John/Bill

Why don't people care about Hill's coverup while they do Elizabeth's?

Regarding the possibility of multiple affairs: Edwards had stuck with Elizabeth literally through thick and thin, and in sickness and in health.

But who's taking care of the caregiver? Edwards seems to be a normal, healthy man in the prime of life. I doubt Elizabeth would have been eager to jump in the sack during chemotherapy. If some attractive woman suddenly offered to be the roller skate to his key, only a moral paragon would have refused. Most men are only as faithful as their options permit. Had Edwards been a lifelong tomcat a la Bill Clinton, surely we would have heard about it by now.

fls: I doubt Elizabeth would have been eager to jump in the sack during chemotherapy. If some attractive woman suddenly offered to be the roller skate to his key, only a moral paragon would have refused.

Really? Only a moral paragon would remain faithful to his wife while she's dying of cancer? I think you need to raise your standards a bit. Too much Homer Simpson in your diet.

Regarding the possibility of multiple affairs: Edwards had stuck with Elizabeth literally through thick and thin, and in sickness and in health.

Well, then there's no problem, is there? ... Oh. You're using that politicians' non-literal meaning of "literally." Or possibly arguing that he "stuck to" her, sure, but elided the "forsaking all others" bit I seem to recall from the Anglican Marriage Service. Whatever.

But who's taking care of the caregiver? Edwards seems to be a normal, healthy man in the prime of life. I doubt Elizabeth would have been eager to jump in the sack during chemotherapy. If some attractive woman suddenly offered to be the roller skate to his key, only a moral paragon would have refused. Most men are only as faithful as their options permit. Had Edwards been a lifelong tomcat a la Bill Clinton, surely we would have heard about it by now.

Yeah, well, if you're in "the prime of life," and the person you've sworn to love, honor, cherish, and all that associated rot is unhappily ill, well, that's certainly when any red-blooded male would go out searching immediately for greener pastures, wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean? My first thought if my own husband were incapacitated would surely be Damn! Where am I gonna get my noogie now? 'Cause, you know, that's what we women think about 24/7.

Jeebus God, fls, can you imagine doing that to someone you love? Someone sick and in pain and starved of your company because you are, after all, a very important individual and running for President?

Aaack, the whole situation is loathsome, but Mrs. Edwards, who's getting slammed the most today, is the one who least deserves it.

Oh please! Gag, ack, barf. What the fuck is so heroic about her? She is a hero becuase her husband was running for president? What makes her any more special than another unknown woman suffering from the same disease?

Fuck these so called heroic celebrities. She is no more a hero than anyone else.

Women used to credit Edwards for not bolting when ex-beauty queen Elizabeth started putting on weight. Had he divorced her then no one would begrudge him an affair now. Instead he stayed with her for the sake of the family, and he stayed with her through her illness.

when any red-blooded male would go out searching

is sadly not the same as

"If some attractive woman suddenly offered"

Someone sick and in pain

needs care.

But again, where does the caregiver go for care? Who takes care of his needs? A fling is better than ditching your wife in her time of need.

Peter-I probably should have said "heroic". There were people, including Elizabeth herself, really touting her appearance at the convention.She wanted to be celebrated. John running for office was about the glorification of the both of them.

Anyhow, I was just saying why I thought it unlikely that Edwards was a serial cheater like Clinton: a woman made herself available when his wife was unavailable.

And a man with the sort of cojones women are actually interested in would have smacked her upside the head.

Tell me, if this were the story of an attractive woman with an invalid husband, lighting on an attractive young "staffer" and giving him, shall we say, a salary commensurate with the dimensions of his staff, would you feel the same? How would you feel about a man who "made himself available"?

if this were the story of an attractive woman with an invalid husband, lighting on an attractive young "staffer" and giving him, shall we say, a salary commensurate with the dimensions of his staff, would you feel the same? How would you feel about a man who "made himself available"?

Men announce their availability to women all the time, but few women take them up on it.

I mean what a tart. Poor John all alone with his grief. And she comes slinking through the hotel room in her Victoria's Secret. He tried to fend her off but she was just too strong willed for him.You remind me of the very best of all Savage Love columns. (That's "Dan Savage" the gay sex columnist, who so far as I know can enter the UK, not Michael Savage the radio personality, who can't.)

The theme was the "how'd that happen?" sort of letter, about people who claimed to have gotten into sexual situations completely by accident. There was a dude who said he went in for a back massage, and the masseur suddenly put a thumb up his butt, and he said he had no idea what to do, but just lay there. A position that Savage characterized unforgettably as "thumb ... up ... a$$ ... can't ... move ... please ... send ... help."

It's really not impossible not to cheat on your seriously ill wife. I know quite three men who didn't. So far as I know.

The merit is in resisting temptation.Um, sure. Sen Edwards doesn't get the merit. Not that his temptress strikes me as particularly tempting -- but then I never quite understood why Clinton's dick led him in the directions it did, either.

Denial always comes from a deep state of fear. With her own mother’s fear of her father’s infidelities and her only wedding gift request from J – to stay faithful point a deep fear of abandonment, I’d be careful not to dismiss this too lightly.

I’d contend that Elizabeth and John’s agendas were very different. His was the nomination – and for this he should be the one held accountable for putting the nation in danger (though the system weeded him out, so I’m not so sold on how much danger we were actually in). Her agenda was very different – as a woman in the throes of terminal cancer and then the news of an unfaithful husband – I would guess that her own survival, the very basic of instincts, took over, in a big, big way.

After as smart and together as she portrays herself, there’s very insecure. And yeah, I know, grow up – but the reality is that we all do what we do to survive. And yes, her actions were selfish and self-serving (no consequences for John, from her, an no playing the tape out as to the campaign/national implications), but the vitriol should be saved for him. We’ll see if she has enough time on the clock to see this clearly.

As far as her handling of Hunter, I think clearly, she's poisoning the well - this woman will not have John after she is gone. No matter what.

Has anyone ever read of the domestic lives of British politicians like Harold MacMillan, the Montbattens, and members of the Bloomsbury set? They looked like a pile of wet tweeds, but they managed to have the rabbity sex lives of rock stars. They seemed to have a different set of rules than most people. Their transcendence of bourgeoise morality did not seem to lead to any great joy, but their biographies have some interesting footnotes.....Anyway, I think people like the Edwards and the Clintons and the Spitzers have their own private wedding vows. When news of the internal dynamics of their marriage becomes public, they put on a show of outrage and regret but it is all for show. Their marriages have much loftier goals than fidelity.